I checked out the Danish Athlete Study. The results are worthless because this was an unblinded, uncontrolled study. In order to produce valid research, studies which test drugs, nutrients, etc., for efficacy must be double-blind, meaning that neither the researcer or subject does not know what they are getting.

The control comes into effect with the placebo arm of the study. It is the only way to know whether something truly works or does not. The placebo effect in many aspects of human health and disease is quite impressive.

If this is the level of the research that this book relies on, I'm sorry to say that it will not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

It is painfully obvious that you haven't read the book. The science is there. More so, than your link to the "Paleolithic diet" that you recommend freepers to learn about.

As for the Danish study, it was never intended to be a definitive paper on the subject. Hence the term "Study". It is what it is, a study of a limited number of participants and the effects while on the oil compard to their health when not on the oil with no other changes to their lifestyle. Nothing more, nothing less.

It is not worthless. The differences between their health before taking the oil and while taking the oil can be useful for gauging areas that EFAs can be beneficial in. Certainly not definitive, but an indicator nonetheless. The results can be a good point for other researchers to determine directions of research. Additional studies would be able to focus on specific areas to determine efficacy.

I know from my experience and my roommate's experience, that our health changes from taking the EFA oil supplement are similar to those in the Danish Study.

I know from my experience and my roommate's experience, that our health changes from taking the EFA oil supplement are similar to those in the Danish Study.

As I said, the placebo effect can often be powerful; that's why we need controlled trials. Live with it--it's called science.

As far as the scientific worth of what I have directed Freepers to (the paleolithic diet page), I am not sure whether you are well enough grounded in scientific methods to understand the concepts, but here goes anyway:

We have been hunter-gatherers for as long as we've been pre-human and human--about 2 million years. It was only about 15 thousand years ago (when we domesticated plants and were able to grow wheat and corn and rice or whatever) that we were ever capable of getting any concentrated source of carbohydrates. Therefore, our metabolism (enzymes, receptor sites, hormones, etc.) are set for the diet that we evolved with; what we eat now--in terms of both macro- and micronutients--is a far cry from that.

The unnatural combination of high carbs and high fat diet (esp. the carbs) is what appears to give us western diseases.

I never disagreed with you on the concepts of a healthy diet. My point was that there is a lot of supposition behind the Paleolithic Diet since it relies more on self evident truths than on scientific tests. Yet you conclude that I am not relying on science when I am discussing the physical affects of oils on health.

The evidence behind the effects of EFAs and other oils on our bodies has only become known through actual tests. Research on oils and our health is an area that you should really spend some time learning about.

Research has been done that shows it is not a high fat diet that causes health problems. It is a diet high in trans fatty acids and to a lesser extent diets with excess saturated fats that are problematic.

Other studies have shown the negative consequences of refined sugars and other simple carbohydrates as opposed to the complex carbohydrates.

As you can see, for the most part, I agree with you on the rationale behind what we should and should not be consuming. The only point of argument that we are having is over the scientific evidence behind EFAs. I say there is valid scientific evidence behind EFAs and their effects on health and that evidence is presented in the book Fats That Heal Fats That Kill. Meanwhhile, without having read the book, you are basically concluding there isn't any or that it is shoddy.

Please don't talk to me about "condescending;" it was YOU who accused me of being "dense," I had been perfectly respectful until you started the name-calling.

You referred me to a "study," provided the link, and I read it. The Danish Study was an uncontrolled, unblinded worthless exercise. Please learn about the importance of randomized controlled trials. This phenomenon is not unusual when rat scientists attempt to extrapolate their findings to humans.

For example, many uncontrolled observational studies appeared to show a benefit of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for postmenopausal women re cardiovascular risk; however, it was only when this was studied in a randomized, controlled fashion that we learned it actually INCREASED the risk of CV disease by 30%.

First off, the only reason I ASKED if you were dense was because you kept ignoring that I was citing specific information based upon research that you could easily verify by reading the book. At that point, you were either not comprehending that I was pointing you to a reference, or you were arrogantly dismissing it.

After several more posts, it had become clear that you were not interested in knowing whether or not the facts were there. You were only interested in trying to prove that you were the only one that knew anything about science. Sorry, but that is a condescending attitude.

For example, in the first response to me you state:

When you cut down on carbs and eat protein and fat as per Atkins you get all the EFAs you need

Really? Would you care to cite a research paper on that?

My next post presented some pretty specific information about EFAs:

Even Atkins' diet is sorely lacking in EFAs. Our bodies need a significant amount of EFAs for a lot of different functions. To start with, our bodies use EFAs in ever single cell, joint, tissue, organ, etc. They are a major nutrients and about 90-95 percent of people do not get adequate amounts of EFAs in their diets.

There have been several studies that show that our bodies need considerable amounts of EFAs (always in GRAMS, not milligrams). Atkins' diet does not suggest EFAs even close to the amounts recommended. Research has shown that EFAs are used in every cell, organ, etc.. Other studies have shown that 90-95% of people are lacking even the minimum recommended EFAs in their diet. These are all statements about research that has been done, not what I believe.

A few minutes in a search engine alone would be able to provide you with citations of the studies that cover the above statements by myself.

Your posts after the above is where you become the most condescending. You proceed to tell me I'm not relying on science EVEN AFTER I tell you where you can find the citations that back up my contentions.

As far as nonblind studies go, you must not be very aware that they are used and accepted practice in science. Yes, they are limited, but they have their uses and are given credence by their use in major science journals and online medical databases. Perhaps you should write to the journals and tell them they are publishing "worthless" studies and that they have no place in the world of science.

Perhaps you should write to the journals and tell them they are publishing "worthless" studies and that they have no place in the world of science.

Oh I don't have to tell the journals: they (as everyone else in the clinical sciences are aware) know about the ratings that are now universally applied to data. This makes up "evidence-based medicine" and is a far cry from the wishful-thinking school of pseudo-science that the study you cited represents.

And, you can dance around the fact that you called me "dense" early on, but it is clear nonetheless that the condescension first came from you.

A few examples of how evidence from trials is rated by journals and societies:

Evidence Rating Scales

Several evidence rating scales are used to assess the quality of health care research designs. Two common evidence rating scales are from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research.

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force I: Evidence obtained from at least one properly-designed randomized controlled trial II-1: Evidence obtained from well-designed controlled trials without randomization. II-2: Evidence obtained from well-designed cohort or case-control analytic studies, preferably from more than one center or research group. II-3: Evidence obtained from multiple time series with or without the intervention. III: Opinions of respected authorities, based on clinical experience, descriptive studies, or reports of expert committees.

Sorry, but your writing style towards people is very condescending. It was condescending from the beginning and has remained so. I simply called you on it, and it continues to show evertime you write. You are the Algore of online discourse.

None of the ratings you cited deny the use of nonblinded studies in science. Apparently they qualify under the guidelines and they don't consider them worthless. Wiggle all you want, but they ARE presented in medical journals and databases. You again ignore the facts and set up straw man arguments.

If you feel the need for the last word, as I suspect you do. Feel free to respond. As far as I'm concerned this debate is over as you continue to ignore facts in order to pointlessly argue. Cheers.

Lemme make it easy for you (I'll type slowly so you can get it): what you describe as a "study" is considered the lowest form of data--equal to an anecdotal report (because, after all, that's what it is). This is not science, but storytelling, and if you cannot tell the difference, it is you who are cognitvely impaired.

Bumping a bonehead reply I made back in 2002. I knew I would find myself on record somewhere in this forum bashing this diet. A few months after writing this, I would go on a low-carb diet and lose 107 pounds.

210
posted on 04/04/2004 9:05:07 AM PDT
by SamAdams76
(I'm voting for John Kerry until I vote against him in November)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.